Defendant took 1,197 days sick leave
A Macau Customs Service officer (referred to as A), who took a total of 1,197 days sick leave from work due to alleged spinal disc herniation was sentenced to jail for two years and nine months, the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) said in a statement on Monday.
According to the statement, A was “diagnosed” with the condition on January 20, 2014, so he was transferred to a “less intensive work position”, mainly handling documents.
The statement said that, however, A got his taxi licence three days later, adding that on February 21, 2014 A got his taxi driver permit, which he had renewed every year until 2018. The statement said that in order to earn both the salary of a customs officer and a taxi driver, he used the purported herniation as an excuse to get 173 doctor’s notes, adding up to 1,197 days of sick leave. The statement noted that A was paid by the government a total salary of 1,094,136 patacas and 128,640 patacas as holiday pay.
The statement said that A faced a document forgery charge and a fraud charge involving a considerably large amount of money. The statement added the Court of First Instance (TJB) ruled that A was only charged for the latter and sentenced to two years and nine months behind bars, as well as payment of 1,222,776 patacas to the Macau Customs Service.
The statement said that A disagreed with the ruling as it was “too harsh”, so he or she (the statement did not reveal the defendant’s gender) appealed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI) asking for five-year probation and in exchange A promised to pay an extra 15,000 patacas to the Macau Customs Service, as well as to pay the 1,222,776 patacas within the five-year period.
The TSI panel of judges ruled that as A “purposely, voluntarily and consciously” decided to commit the offence and initially even refused to admit to his or her crime, this showed that he or she “deliberately” breached the law and showed no regret.
The statement pointed out that, most importantly, as an officer, A ignored the law even though he or she fully acknowledged that his or her behaviour was illegal. The panel said that if the court allowed probation, the public would lose confidence in the city’s legal system, adding that it might even give the illusion that officers violating the law wouldn’t have to face serious consequences.
The statement underlined that, therefore, the court rejected A’s appeal so that A will have to serve two years and nine months behind bars.
